"...to take private real estate for public use." But for whose "public," ours or theirs?

The PLO charter specifically renounces any claim on Gaza, and the "West Bank," (www.middleeastfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=46) That having been said, and for the rest of the article ignored, because it would make all this other nonsense irrelevant, we may now begin.

I see that a number of comments are posted in defense of Sharon attempt to euphemistically invoke "eminent domain" to justify his surrender of Jewish land to Israel's mortal enemy. I must insist that they at least feign an attempt to be specific about how that concept applies under international law, because, in terms of its usual definition, that argument makes no sense.

The normal provision of "eminent domain" is to allow a state to acquire private property in order to develop it for the benefit of the state and the population in general, i.e., "for the common good" (www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/eminent-domain.htm). Under Sharon's plan, productive and loyal law-abiding citizens are to be violently evicted and treated worse than enemy terrorists, their property destroyed or surrendered to our enemy, sovereignty over the most historically Jewish areas of Israel relinquished, and security of the state undermined to the point of near annihilation. (www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=4807)

There is no conceptual equivalence whatever between what "eminent domain" means in terms of its core concepts of "development" and "benefit," and what Sharon is planning. The crass misuse of the term, to refer to mere mechanical "taking" of property and "disposing" of it, is a good illustration of how one can disinform, while appearing to tell the truth.

Yes, I know some of them want us to naively assume that the "benefit" is the putative "peace" this dramatic surrender will somehow magically usher in. But by now we should be all too painfully aware of how that myth has been, and continues to be, quite literally exploded as often and as brutally as the enemy can manage.

There is another crucial point that is being ignored, and that is the mandate Sharon was given when he was democratically elected. When he says a referendum is not necessary, he is quite correct. It has already been held. The plan Sharon is seeking to force upon us is the very one Israel thought it resoundingly rejected by voting for Ariel Sharon, formerly of the faux hard-Right.

The "disengagement" was proposed by the Left, and ostensibly opposed by Sharon. Israel chose Sharon, only to sadly discover that all Arik "opposed" about "disengagement" was allowing his opponents to carry it out instead of himself.

No, there is no precedent in the annals of history for what Ariel Sharon is trying to do; or perhaps I should say, undo.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to "...to take private real estate for public use." But for whose "public," ours or theirs? by Yonason

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".